3 ms·

I am unconvinced that time is a real dimension, sure we can model movement/interactions of particles as a 4th dimension, but nothing in our understanding of phy

I am unconvinced that time is a real dimension, sure we can model movement/interactions of particles as a 4th dimension, but nothing in our understanding of physics requires it being a physical reality. IMO it's less space-time and more just space, it's just the rate of change slows with more mass.

jhayward 5y ago
There's at least one prominent physicist [1] who is working on showing that time is an emergent property of quantum physics rather than a fundamental one. [1] https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/10/18/is-time-real/ https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/10/18/is-time...
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
If time isn't real, then when you say "rate of change", I ask "rate of change with respect to what?"
- advanced-DnD 5y ago
  He's not claiming time isn't real, which the definition of "real" is difficult and troubling to define in itself. I think he doesn't consider time to be 4th (or part of 3+1 or \R^3 \times \R ) dimension... or in heat equation language: that the domain is a not parabolic cylinder.
- sweetheart 5y ago
  Check out "The Order of Time" by Carlo Rovelli! You might find it interesting. He explains (WAY more eloquently than I could) that time is most likely an interpretation of underlying physical law, rather than a fundamental part of it! An illusion, if just a fancy one.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    I have a hard time buying that, given the Lorentz Transform. Time is just as much a real dimension as space is. (Or are the dimensions of space also "an interpretation of underlying physical law"?) I believe the Lorentz Transformation more than I believe eloquent arguments.